Unified Modeling Language (UML) for system architecture

[WHeryut]

I have done some basic concepts with the software development. Now I want to know about the Unified Modeling Language for system architecture which is commonly known as UML for system architecture. You must be aware that UML is used for development of complete systems including hardware, along with some adjustments to the notation. The UML is in the software development for some time as a common notation means the results of the analysis (What software do I do?) and architecture (how software is implemented mean?) record. Now the question is whether and how this notation can be transferred to a modified object of observation, a system to share experience and synergy effects, especially for the traceability of requirements to take advantage? I am sure that you members would give me some support in this subject soon.

[GurdeepS]

For the analysis no significant difference exists for the two types of viewing objects and thus, the notation from the software analysis are relatively easily applied to the system analysis. In architecture, the system will be made as well as the software provides a decomposition of the whole into smaller, more manageable parts. For the components so found their tasks and interaction must be established. Attention will be paid both static and dynamic aspects that define the structure of the system and process of the required functions. On closer examination, are found quickly, the first differences between the system and the software architecture, which I am trying to explain in brief. There are no artifacts in the system architecture or processes that need to be distributed on a system landscape. Thus, no process or required distribution tables, as known from the pure software architecture. be made depending on the type of cutting system but may be a grouping of system components to spatial components (cabinets, plug, etc.).

[archer]

There are no artifacts in the system architecture or processes that need to be distributed on a system landscape. Thus, no process or required distribution tables, as known from the pure software architecture. be made depending on the type of cutting system but may be a grouping of system components to spatial components (cabinets, plug, etc.).

Another difference is in the nature of the components that make up a system. In the software architecture course, requires only pure software components. In the system architecture, although it does need an additional way to distinguish software and hardware components. The educational component is also subject to other considerations. Thus it can be for the decomposition of a system is an important criterion for the appointment of external suppliers, which are found in the software architecture rather rare. Similarly, can begin to develop easy to see that pattern not typical of the software architecture as the layer model, or pipes and filters can be easily transferred into the system architecture.

[TalinF]

Because the differences in the design of a system and software architecture are mainly confined to activities, the results produced in nature but similar to the UML also provides for systems is an adequate way to document a large portion of these results. It is not about to replace proven notations of hardware development, such as construction drawings. Instead, the UML offers in some areas a profitable add-on option. This is the case when it comes to the communication that goes to the system development teams involved, the traceability of design decisions, or for an easier transition to software development. Hope I have added some more knowledge in your brain.

[Tuhina]

The starting point for a system based on the UML 2.0 model of the system architecture is the full system analysis, resulting from the requirements for the system to a certain depth. One technique for this is the use-case analysis to the functional requirements can be identified and documented in a system. This approach closes with one, that the use cases (typical interactions of the system with its environment) by activity diagrams, or, above all in real-time embedded systems, state machines are described in detail. In addition, form the non-functional requirements such as reliability, safety, or embedding the system in its environment is a critical input into the system architecture. These aspects are levied in systems analysis and documented.

[Solaris]

In practice, it is unlikely to reach a full system analysis before the first architectural work. Usually results in an interlocked process between a broad analysis, the first architecture specifications as well as a refinement of the analytical results. The structuring of a system is only one of several activities to make an architect. A second is the description of the components within this structure, particularly the description of the duties of the individual components. The definition of the interfaces between the components is the third important aspect in the architecture. The goal of the system architecture, therefore, is both to describe software and hardware for development, those components that can be implemented in isolation as possible from the other components. All three activities are closely linked. They influence each other and input for each other's activities. For this reason, the activities in the system architecture will not run like a waterfall, iterative and closely interlinked.

[Quattro]

The activities of a system architect consists mainly of three broad subject areas in which influence one another in the implementation:

• The first step is to structure the system, the components identified. It has to the system in small, independently viable units break down and present these in a hierarchical tree.
• In the second step, it must define the tasks of the components. Taken together, must meet the requirements of the tasks or functions required of an overall system.
• And then to the interfaces. They describe the data and functions that provides a component.